Rep. Berman: Those Who Don't Like The PRO IP Bill Just Want To Steal Stuff

from the say-what-now? dept

Now, we all know that Rep. Howard Berman, who represents a district right next door to Hollywood is in favor of strengthening intellectual property laws. He's made absolutely no secret of that. It's quite questionable then, as to why he should be considered an impartial overseer of intellectual property laws. But, in a talk on Friday he made some very bizarre statements that make it clear he doesn't care at all what those who disagree with him think. First, he claims that there's not much controversy concerning the PRO IP bill, which is a huge understatement. However, the real kicker, is that when asked about the groups (like the EFF) opposing the bill, he brushes them off as follows:

"There are people who want to steal intellectual property. Their lobby is distributed, diffuse, but unfortunately very popular."

This, ladies and gentleman, is the guy who's in charge of determining our intellectual property laws. He simply assumes that anyone who disagrees with him "wants to steal intellectual property" (which, of course, isn't possible -- you can infringe, but not steal it). But, even more to the point, the folks he's talking about are most certainly not even defending the infringement of copyrights. They're talking about trying to bring the laws more in line with what's reasonable. To paint them all with the brush of defending "stealing" isn't just wrong, it's rather obnoxious.

Circle Jerk

Is this the person who thinks copyright infringement should be punishable by imprisonment ?
Why would a civil matter be punishable as though it were a criminal matter ?
Why would my tax dollars be wasted chasing teenagers and grandmas who do not even own a computer ?
This is certainly is one of the biggest circle jerks ever.

Oh, for Citizen's Veto ...

Whenever I read of a jerk like Berman in power, it makes me wish for the kind of citizen's veto that Robert Sheckley imagined in "A Ticket to Tranai". Might be a little hard to find the story, but it's worth the effort to go find it.

"Diffuse"

Note his use of the term "diffuse". What that means is that voters sympathetic to the EFF and such are spread too thinly across your electorates to get any actual political representatives into power, where they could actually influence the laws.

Under a proportional-representation voting system, such a distribution wouldn't matter, their voice would still be heard. But under your winner-takes-all system, they end up being marginalized.

You Missed the Key Sentence.

Berman "...joked that as the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee... he'd support using military force against countries that are piracy havens."

I didn't think he was quite that dumb. Out here in the heartland, in "flyover country," you just don't joke about that kind of thing-- ever. One can imagine the attack ad it would make:

"Rep. Howard Berman, from Hollywood, wants to get your son killed in some godforsaken tropical country, so that his friends in the movie industry can make more money. Out in Hollywood, they think of people like you as expendable pawns. Rep. Berman voted against a bill to bring our boys back home from Iraq. Iraq is nothing more than a 'photo-op' for Rep. Berman. Naturally, Rep. Berman is supported by AIPAC. Now he wants to launch a hundred other wars... where it will all happen over again. The dead... the crippled... the whole thing, all over again. War, without end, for the sake of Hollywood. Our own Senator/Rep. X supports Rep. Berman and all his creepy friends. Telephone Senator/Rep. X and tell him that you want him to get Howard Berman censured!"

Getti.ng your facts right

“Now, we all know that Rep. Howard Berman, who represents a district right next door to Hollywood is in favor of strengthening intellectual property laws.”

Michael Masnick, if you are going to act like a reporter you really need to get your facts straight. Berman favors strengthening copyright because he is feeding at the trough of copyright interests. At the same time Rep. Howard Berman is doing his best to weaken and turn the patent system into a king’s sport. He has worked hard to make holding patents about a hundred times more expensive than it is now and to limit recovery for infringement to one to one tenth what it is now.

Dare I say that Rep. Howard Berman is suffering from a split personality? The connection between Rep. Howard Berman’s diametrically opposed points of view is big business money.

And then you go on to say “This, ladies and gentleman, is the guy who's in charge of determining our intellectual property laws.”

Michael Masnick, this is another clear error of fact (Which goes to my opinion that you are pretty ignorant about intellectual property issues.) Sorry, but Rep. Howard Berman is not in charge of determining our intellectual property laws. He is the chairman and one of many House members on the IP subcommittee. You also have people serving similar functions of the Senate side and in the end it takes a majority vote of both the House and Senate.

Michael Masnick says “(which, of course, isn't possible -- you can infringe, but not steal it)”, which is yet another error of fact. Intellectual property is clearly defined in the Constitution as a property right. If someone has met the criteria defined in law and granted intellectual property rights taking that property is theft, stealing, etc.

I do not approve of theft of IP because it is the backbone of our whole economic system. But I also do not approve of the copyright industry’s constant attempts to restrict their customer’s rights to fair use of property which they have purchased. In fact I would agree that the industry’s conduct has been outrageous.

In my opinion Michael Masnick and Rep. Howard Berman are a lot alike, I think it is probable that when it comes to patents that both are serving the same masters.

Once again Mike I want to thank you for giving me use of this forum because it has brought many new members to PIAUSA.org. Both you and Cisco’s and their Troll Tracker have inadvertently helped PIAUSA.org torpedo patent deform. We do this in part in recognition of the second most prolific inventor in the history of America, Jerry Lemelson who was also viciously maligned by groups of patent pirating companies throughout the nineteen-nineties :)

Re: Getti.ng your facts right

Intellectual property is clearly defined in the Constitution as a property right.

As has been pointed out to you previously, the Constitution does not define intellectual property as a property right. In fact, let's (once again) post the relevant passage:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

As can be clearly seen, the Constitution provides an exclusive right, not a property right. Notice that the passage does not mention "property" at all, but refers directly to "writings and discoveries." In addition, the Supreme Court, in Dowling v. United States, ruled that there is a difference between infringement and theft. From the majority opinion:

"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

In this decision, the Supreme Court made a distinction between physical property and "intellectual property" and the accompanying rights, and further noted that "interference with a copyright", such as infringement, does not equate with theft.

As is increasingly obvious, you are hardly an "IP expert", and seem more concerned with spreading misinformation to shore up donations to the organizations you founded.

Re: Re: Getti.ng your facts right

Dowling, a case so many seem to believe rejects the notion that "copyright" is "property", turns upon an entirely different issue altogether. Moreover, even in Dowling the justices did equate copyright as a species of property. What the majority in the case held, however, was that criminal conduct associated with copyright was already addressed with specificity in the Copyright statutes, and, thusly, the law at issue in Dowling was construed such that it would not upset the policy decisions for criminal conduct stated in Title 17. The majority opinion also went on to note that if Congress did want to extend the reach of criminal conduct concerning copyright such that it was included within the scope of the statute under which Dowling was prosecuted, there was no constitutional limitation preventing it from doing so...an implicit recognition the term "theft" could apply with equal force was Congress inclined to amend the statue involved in Dowling.

While the post to which you respond does overstate the case in some respects, the same can be said of yours.

Re: Re: Re: Getti.ng your facts right

a case so many seem to believe rejects the notion that "copyright" is "property"

I did not use the case to illustrate that point. I was citing Dowling to observe that a distinction was made by the Supreme Court between intellectual property and physical property, which it does:

We must determine, therefore, whether phonorecords that include the performance of copyrighted musical compositions for the use of which no authorization has been sought nor royalties paid are consequently "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314. We conclude that they are not.
.....
In contrast, the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright.

The government's case was rejected because infringement did not meet the requirement of having been stolen as defined by law.

The majority opinion also went on to note that if Congress did want to extend the reach of criminal conduct concerning copyright such that it was included within the scope of the statute under which Dowling was prosecuted, there was no constitutional limitation preventing it from doing so

In other words, the U.S. legal definition of theft can be determined by Congress. Fair enough, but Congress has, to-date, not passed any such law. Therefore, as it currently stands, there is a legal (as well as a logical) separation between physical property rights and intellectual property rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Getti.ng your facts right

Sections 2318, 2319 and 2319A to Section 18 of the United States Code are directed to various acts of copyright infringement that are defined as federal crimes. Importantly, these sections are in addition to the sections contained in Title 17 that similarly define criminal conduct.

While certainly not conclusive as a matter of law, it is interesting that the title to the chapter of the United States Code (Chapter 113) in which the above sections appear is entitled "Stolen Property".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Getti.ng your facts right

From the Dowling decision:

Thus, the Court has stressed repeatedly that "when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite."

In other words, if Congress wanted to legally equate infringement with theft, it should explicitly state it. A chapter title is not relevant in determining the definition of terms.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Getti.ng your facts right

The Dowling case pertained to prosecution under federal criminal law, specifically 18 USC 2314. In 2005 and 2006 Sections 2318, 2319, and 2319A were added to to Title 18 address the limitations in Section 2314 noted by the court in Dowling.

The mention of "Stolen Property" was, as noted, merely an anecdotal reference.

Whether people agree or disagree that intangible property (aka...choses in action) should be accorded the attributes of "property" as is associated with tangible property is largely beside the point. Under current jurisprudence patents and copyrights are treated as property under both state and federal law.

Re: Getti.ng your facts right

Michael Masnick, if you are going to act like a reporter you really need to get your facts straight.

Ronald, now I understand why you never respond to any of the direct questions we ask you: it's because you don't read any of the comments. I have pointed out already that I am not a journalist and have never implied that I was a journalist.

But, if you're going to accuse me of being wrong on the facts, let's take a look...

At the same time Rep. Howard Berman is doing his best to weaken and turn the patent system into a king’s sport. He has worked hard to make holding patents about a hundred times more expensive than it is now and to limit recovery for infringement to one to one tenth what it is now.

First of all, Berman is looking to change the patent system -- and as I've already told you (though you seem to ignore this over and over again) I think his changes are BAD for the system (hint: Ronald, we agree that this is not a good bill).

Yet, you are FACTUALLY incorrect in claiming that he's going to make holding patents "a hundred times more expensive" and also that he will limit recovery to "one to one tenth what it is now." Both statements are factually incorrect.

What the bill attempts to do (though, it will fail to do so) is to make it harder to get bad patents -- of which there have been many (and I've yet to see anyone disagree with that fact). That seems reasonable, and if anything, it should make it EASIER to get and hold a GOOD patent, because it will remove much of the logjam in getting a patent.

As for recovery, what the plan tries to do is make sure that the damages more accurate reflect the importance of the patented invention. It's hard to see how this isn't perfectly reasonable unless you are so biased that you have to position it as cutting recovery rates. That's not the case at all. If someone's product has a patented method as the key component, they will still pay the same fines. The amount will only be reduced in the situation where it's a minor part of the invention.

That's called basic fairness.

I'd like a good explanation for why it's more fair to hold otherwise.

Michael Masnick, this is another clear error of fact (Which goes to my opinion that you are pretty ignorant about intellectual property issues.) Sorry, but Rep. Howard Berman is not in charge of determining our intellectual property laws. He is the chairman and one of many House members on the IP subcommittee. You also have people serving similar functions of the Senate side and in the end it takes a majority vote of both the House and Senate.

Perhaps a slight exaggeration (much less of an exaggeration than yours, I might add), but he and his staff wrote both the patent reform bill and the pro ip bill -- and he's also been in charge of pushing them through. So, I think it's a fair statement.

Michael Masnick says “(which, of course, isn't possible -- you can infringe, but not steal it)”, which is yet another error of fact. Intellectual property is clearly defined in the Constitution as a property right.

As DanC correctly noted, it is not defined as a property right at all. In fact, I will (once again) quote Thomas Jefferson, the father of the patent system:

"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Apparently you were unfamiliar with that statement?

IP can be infringed on, but not stolen. We don't deny that infringing is illegal, but it's quite different than stealing.

"I do not approve of theft of IP because it is the backbone of our whole economic system"

You mean you don't approve of infringing on IP. But, as for it being "the backbone of our whole economic system," that is also, clearly, a false statement. I would again point you to the research showing no causal connection between stronger IP and great economic innovation. The new book Patent Failures, highlights some of that research. Another book that highlights much of the research is Against Intellectual Monopoly. It might help to read both, but I get the feeling you prefer ignorance (and are rewarded handsomely for doing so).

In my opinion Michael Masnick and Rep. Howard Berman are a lot alike, I think it is probable that when it comes to patents that both are serving the same masters.

Odd, then, that I disagree with Berman on nearly everything, isn't it? I like how anyone who disagrees with you (even if they totally disagree with each other) must have "the same corporate masters."

Unless you can provide proof that I am paid for public advocacy (which is impossible, because I am not), I once again ask you to retract your defamatory statements.

Since you incorrectly labeled me as a shill with no proof while you proudly trumpet your own job as a lobbyist, might I ask how much you get paid in your various lobbying rolls?

It would certainly appear that you are paid to take one side of this debate. I am not (despite your false claims).

So, please, Ronald, how much are you paid to make ignorant statements?

Once again Mike I want to thank you for giving me use of this forum because it has brought many new members to PIAUSA.org. Both you and Cisco’s and their Troll Tracker have inadvertently helped PIAUSA.org torpedo patent deform. We do this in part in recognition of the second most prolific inventor in the history of America, Jerry Lemelson who was also viciously maligned by groups of patent pirating companies throughout the nineteen-nineties :)

Ronald, I highly doubt that any educated person reading our conversations would believe you over me. But, if you have been able to attract a few more ignorant people, more power to you. I'd rather be on the side of being correct than ignorance.

And I won't even get into Lemelson, but the fact that you hold him up as a prolific "inventor" and accuse people who didn't "malign" him but pointed out how he repeatedly abused the patent system shows that your level of willful ignorance is off the charts. CAFC, which has been one of the staunchest supporters of keeping patents strong as possible even ruled, quite definitively that Lemelson abused the patent system and made his patent unenforceable. You're not going to say that CAFC is a tool of those "same corporate masters" are you?

You still look like an asshat, Ronnie.

Once again, Ronnie J... If you're speaking on your own behalf, then your affiliations don't matter and it's inappropriate to mention them. I don't even want to read what you have to say because you look like an asshat. You'd do better at furthering your agenda if you knocked off the 'affiliated with' crap.

Mike's Wounded Ego :)

“Ronald, I highly doubt that any educated person reading our conversations would believe you over me.”

Michael Masnick, I am surrounded by not just educated but brilliant people. I think that is a group is so far above your and your minion’s level that you are not even capable of comprehending the degree of difference.

I assure you that they do believe me over you :) There is no question that you are a master of the written word. But there is a huge difference between the public relations spin which you are so good at and the truth. There is a difference between your thought processes and an inventor’s analytical outlook.

“Now, we all know that Rep. Howard Berman, who represents a district right next door to Hollywood is in favor of strengthening intellectual property laws.” Yet Rep. Howard Berman is trying to weaken patent protections. Either you are right or you are wrong and like usual you are incredibly wrong.

Michael Masnick, you are always so smug and now you have lost that smugness, at least briefly. I am willing to bet that there are a bunch of people who are having a very good laugh over you losing your temper in this exchange. You are always welcome to take your best shot. I am confident that it will never be good enough :)

Re: Mike's Wounded Ego :)

I have no idea why you paint Mike Masnick as a public relation person. People paid him for what they DON'T WANT TO HEAR.

If they paid him to spread ideas and propaganda, I am pretty sure that they want their money back. Because Mike is pretty ineffective when it come to convincing critics.

His ideas are direct challenges to how society think about copyright and patent. As a result, almost everybody disagree. However, he got tons of SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up. He got examples that he can point to us. He have theories on why these happen. He studied and research about this issue for a long time.

What you have to offer for this debate? Can you challenge his theories and evidence in the courtroom of science? Can you argue without resorting to personal attack. Can you directly answer the questions?

Re: Mike's Wounded Ego :)

Ronald, you are a propagandist. You haven't stated anything factual or true in any of your posts. When questioned on your credentials that you continue to post (despite stating that you are only speaking for yourself), you resort to petty name calling and unsupported insults. You have a history of repeating your lies despite being shown time and time again that you are wrong.

I am surrounded by not just educated but brilliant people. I think that is a group is so far above your and your minion’s level that you are not even capable of comprehending the degree of difference.

Yes...nobody knows just how incredibly awesomely "special" Ronald and the Super-Friends are. Just ask him.

Re: Mike's Wounded Ego :)

Ron said:
"I am surrounded by not just educated but brilliant people. I think that is a group is so far above your and your minion’s level that you are not even capable of comprehending the degree of difference."

WOW - This guy is really full of himself.
I am not capable of comprehending what sort of ass would say such a thing.

Re: Mike's Wounded Ego :)

I find it amusing, Ronald, that you fail to respond to rather simple questions that were asked of you:

1. Please provide proof that I have been paid to do any public advocacy work?

2. Will you please retract your statement claiming that I do paid public advocacy work, as it is clearly defamation? It is a false statement, which you repeat over and over again.

3. How much money do you make from the organizations who you proudly announce with each and every comment that you run?

4. Can you explain how making sure that only good patents get through is weakening the patent system?

5. Can you explain how I disagree with Rep. Berman on both the Pro IP bill and the patent reform act, yet you say we're paid by the "same corporate masters?"

6. Can you explain why you insist on calling patents property, when law and common sense show they are different?

7. Can you explain why you think that Jerome Lemelson is a worthwhile example when CAFC even said his patents are unenforceable?

These are simple questions, Ronald. I find it amusing that you chose to answer none of them, and instead resorted to calling me names. You say people take you seriously, but it's difficult to understand why, when you seem to have trouble making a simple case for yourself, and you have repeatedly resorted to outright lies about me, and refuse to retract them when called on it.

But there is a huge difference between the public relations spin which you are so good at and the truth.

Again, it has already been pointed out to you that we do no public relations work. Why do you repeat this lie? Perhaps it's because you have no actual facts to base your argument on, so you report to personal insults and libel.

I am willing to bet that there are a bunch of people who are having a very good laugh over you losing your temper in this exchange.

I'm curious as to why you think I lost my temper? I asked you to back up your statements and retract your outright lie.

That's not losing my temper. That's asking you to actually back up a statement rather than fling lies and personal insults around.

Your response? Fling around a few more lies and personal insults.

Not particularly convincing.

Let's face facts here: only one of us is involved in lobbying and public policy, and it's the one who's ego is so big he has to announce it in every post. Only one of us has pointed to actual peer-reviewed research supporting his position, and it's not you.

Has he no shame at all ?

Is this the same Rep. Berman who is the forefront of the anti-patent patent "deform" in US Congress pushed by the Coalition for Patent Piracy to enable stealing new inventions from small upstarts and independent inventors by big multinational corporations ?

Mike's Severely Wounded Ego :)

I find it amusing, Ronald, that you fail to respond to rather simple questions that were asked of you:

Mike Masnick,

. a) Your tone does not sound amused, and that was my intent.
. b) You tend to ask the wrong questions and virtually always come to the wrong conclusions.
. c) This post is yet another example of how you misrepresent what other people say.

1. Please provide proof that I have been paid to do any public advocacy work?

. d) I said: “In my opinion Michael Masnick and Rep. Howard Berman are a lot alike, I think it is probable that when it comes to patents that both are serving the same masters.”

2. Will you please retract your statement claiming that I do paid public advocacy work, as it is clearly defamation? It is a false statement, which you repeat over and over again.

. e) You spout off about libel and ask for a retraction. Do you actually understand what is and what is not liable? The above is not libel. So we have you stating another error of fact.

3. How much money do you make from the organizations who you proudly announce with each and every comment that you run?

. f) I announce who I am affiliated with for transparency, so that people know exactly where I am coming from. None of us make a dime from the organizations. I and others each pay our own way. My income is from patent royalties and from manufacturing products.

4. Can you explain how making sure that only good patents get through is weakening the patent system?

. g) Mike, you are so simplistic. The patent bill has never been about “good patents”. And if you really wanted good patents you would be following our lead calling for tripling the number of examiners and cleaning up USPTO management which many believe is both incompetent and corrupt. Also, we have called for having the USPTO setting up a national non-patent prior art database. They would review submitted prior art for quality and credibility and add such as appropriate to the database.

5. Can you explain how I disagree with Rep. Berman on both the Pro IP bill and the patent reform act, yet you say we're paid by the "same corporate masters?"

6. Can you explain why you insist on calling patents property, when law and common sense show they are different?

. i) Patents are a property right. Ask RIM & Microsoft if they understand this yet. Can you explain why you do not understand this?

7. Can you explain why you think that Jerome Lemelson is a worthwhile example when CAFC even said his patents are unenforceable?

. j) The CAFC said that a few of Lemelson’s patents are unenforceable because of long prosecution delays (laches). They did not address the fact that the USPTO was responsible for the bulk of those delays. Like most bureaucracies the USPTO is more than willing to blame their deficiencies on others.

. I knew Jerry Lemelson very well. He was an honorable man and an incredibly prolific multi-discipline inventor. I also know from first hand experience that USPTO management routinely uses and abuse inventors when it suits a patent pirating transnational.

These are simple questions,

. k) Yes they are just as simplistic as the rubbish you spew about the patent system.

Ronald. I find it amusing that you chose to answer none of them,

. l) Most of the time you ask the wrong questions, perhaps intentionally in an effort to limit the scope of the answers. And my time is limited.

and instead resorted to calling me names.

. m) You need a thicker skin. You also need to consider that your misleading smart assed responses to people may have a bit to do with the kind of responses you get.

You say people take you seriously, but it's difficult to understand why,

. n) Mike, you seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding a great many things.

when you seem to have trouble making a simple case for yourself, and you have repeatedly resorted to outright lies about me, and refuse to retract them when called on it.

. o) It is clear that you have a comprehension problem because I have not resorted to outright lies. But reasonable people might have cause to wonder about your intentions.

But there is a huge difference between the public relations spin which you are so good at and the truth.

Again, it has already been pointed out to you that we do no public relations work. Why do you repeat this lie? Perhaps it's because you have no actual facts to base your argument on, so you report to personal insults and libel.

. p) If you say so :) Mike I have a ton of research on various people who are trying to pass themselves off as experts. Most can be tied directly to a transnational patent pirating company. I may not choose to publicly comment on the specific affiliations but that does not mean that we do not know about them.

I am willing to bet that there are a bunch of people who are having a very good laugh over you losing your temper in this exchange.

I'm curious as to why you think I lost my temper? I asked you to back up your statements and retract your outright lie.

That's not losing my temper. That's asking you to actually back up a statement rather than fling lies and personal insults around.

Your response? Fling around a few more lies and personal insults.

Not particularly convincing.

. q) That is an awful lot of whining. Stop sending insulting responses and you might get better responses.

Let's face facts here: only one of us is involved in lobbying and public policy, and it's the one who's ego is so big he has to announce it in every post. Only one of us has pointed to actual peer-reviewed research supporting his position, and it's not you.

. r) It seems pretty clear that the crap you write is designed to rile up the unwashed and ignorant masses. It is interesting that this effectively promotes the agenda of large patent pirating transnationals.

I'm at a loss to understand why you think you're winning this debate.

. s) Mike, you seem to be at a loss when it comes to understanding intellectual property issues across the board.

Re: Mike's Severely Wounded Ego :)

You'd be amazed. I find this whole thing incredibly amusing, most specifically your own self-importance.

. b) You tend to ask the wrong questions and virtually always come to the wrong conclusions.

I never knew it was possible to ask "wrong" questions. If I come to wrong conclusions, so be it, but it would be your responsibility to actually show why they are wrong. To date, you have not done so.

. c) This post is yet another example of how you misrepresent what other people say.

This from the guy who has repeatedly called me a shill with zero proof. Funny, Ronald. Funny.

1. Please provide proof that I have been paid to do any public advocacy work?

. d) I said: “In my opinion Michael Masnick and Rep. Howard Berman are a lot alike, I think it is probable that when it comes to patents that both are serving the same masters.”

Um. Ronald? That's not proof. That's you making something up. Not only is it you making something up, it's making up something hilarious, since Berman and I disagree on nearly every single thing -- which has been pointed out to you multiple times already.

I'm curious how repeating the same lie is proof? Are you really so full of yourself that merely repeating your own libelous statement is considered proof in your book?

Impressive.

In the meantime, I will ask you once again, nicely, to provide proof that I am paid for public advocacy, or I will ask you once again, nicely, to retract your lie.

. e) You spout off about libel and ask for a retraction. Do you actually understand what is and what is not liable? The above is not libel. So we have you stating another error of fact.

Saying false things about me is libel. You asked what I know about "liable" which is something entirely different, but I'll be nice and assume it was a simple typo.

I'll note, once again, that you have yet to provide proof and you have yet to retract your lie.

. f) I announce who I am affiliated with for transparency, so that people know exactly where I am coming from. None of us make a dime from the organizations. I and others each pay our own way. My income is from patent royalties and from manufacturing products.

Fair enough. So are you saying that you are not a paid lobbyist? You earn no salary from any of those organizations that you list as being the head of? If so, may I ask what those organizations are? I mean, if they don't even pay their own presidents, executive directors and senior fellows then... are they real organizations at all? Otherwise, we could all just invent 35 different organizations to put after our names.

5. Can you explain how I disagree with Rep. Berman on both the Pro IP bill and the patent reform act, yet you say we're paid by the "same corporate masters?"

That's not what I asked. I asked a rather simple question that you are avoiding. You said that it was clear to you that Berman and I have the same "corporate masters." Yet, we disagree on everything (strongly). So I wanted to know if you could explain that disagreement.

I'll note that you chose not to answer, and chalk it up to a bit of cognitive dissonance. It's rather sad that someone so esteemed as you has to claim that anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid shill -- even when they disagree with each other.

Ronald, a little hint: people can disagree with you because (gasp!) you are wrong, and not because they have some agenda. I'm not the one out lobbying Congress -- you are.

6. Can you explain why you insist on calling patents property, when law and common sense show they are different?

. i) Patents are a property right. Ask RIM & Microsoft if they understand this yet. Can you explain why you do not understand this?

You can repeat it all you want and it still doesn't make it right. The fact that RIM and Microsoft think they are property rights doesn't make it correct either. I'm not sure when Microsoft and RIM (two biased parties, and two known abusers of the patent system) became the arbiters of what is and what is not property.

Should we repeat for you what the Supreme Court said about the difference between property and IP?

Or how about Thomas Jefferson. He founded the patent system and famously said: "Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

I tend to trust him more than Microsoft or RIM when it comes to patents.

. j) The CAFC said that a few of Lemelson’s patents are unenforceable because of long prosecution delays (laches). They did not address the fact that the USPTO was responsible for the bulk of those delays. Like most bureaucracies the USPTO is more than willing to blame their deficiencies on others.

So the CAFC was wrong?

. k) Yes they are just as simplistic as the rubbish you spew about the patent system.

Funny that you didn't bother to answer most of them, and are immediately back to insults.

. o) It is clear that you have a comprehension problem because I have not resorted to outright lies. But reasonable people might have cause to wonder about your intentions.

You have repeatedly said that my views were based on being paid for public advocacy by corporations. This is a lie. (and you even repeat it after saying that you haven't lied! Fascinating!)

You have repeatedly said that patents are property. That is a lie.

You have said I have the same agenda as Rep. Berman. That is a lie.

But there is a huge difference between the public relations spin which you are so good at and the truth.

And you lie again.

Mike I have a ton of research on various people who are trying to pass themselves off as experts. Most can be tied directly to a transnational patent pirating company. I may not choose to publicly comment on the specific affiliations but that does not mean that we do not know about them.

Ah, well, I see. So, I'm begging you please, to publish this "proof" that I am paid for public advocacy. Please. Hell, it would be such a coup for you as it would prove that I'm nothing but a shill. Why do you not do so?

I'll tell you why: because it's a lie. I am not, have never been and will not be paid for public advocacy. We do not do any business in public advocacy, and as far as I know, not a single Techdirt client agrees with my position on patents.

Ronald, is it possible that maybe, just maybe, my opinions are my own?

Stop sending insulting responses and you might get better responses.

Ronald, I'm curious which insults I've sent your way. You were the one who started flinging around insults.

. r) It seems pretty clear that the crap you write is designed to rile up the unwashed and ignorant masses. It is interesting that this effectively promotes the agenda of large patent pirating transnationals.

"Unwashed" Ah, so anyone who disagrees with you, and provides proof that you are wrong is unwashed and ignorant. You really know how to debate, don't you?

And, I'm curious how it's ignorant when we point to actual research and evidence of our claims, and you merely insult us?

. s) Mike, you seem to be at a loss when it comes to understanding intellectual property issues across the board.

I would say the same thing for you, and we can let the readers determine who is right.

Re: Re: Mike's Severely Wounded Ego :)

Regarding the continuing reference to Thomas Jefferson as having views contrary to current notions of patents and copyrights, the following is but one example among many that illuminate the fallacy of what is attributed to the views expressed in his letters to Mr. Madison and Mr. McPherson:

Re: Re: Re: Mike's Severely Wounded Ego :)

MLS,

Actually, I've been quite upfront about Jefferson's views on patents. After all, he RAN the patent system for many years and was responsible for many of the initial laws concerning how the patent system was to be constructed.

Yet, nothing in that paper disagrees with the notion that Jefferson was quite skeptical of patents as a whole, other than in unique circumstances. The author of the paper also seems ignorant of Madison's own concerns about the patent system in which he noted:

"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."

Instead, the author claims "While Madison was the advocate of creating patents and copyright...."

I don't deny that both Madison and Jefferson eventually came to the conclusion that patents could be helpful, if used in moderation -- but both were clearly skeptical of the downsides. Both made it clear that it should only be used in very specific circumstances, not nearly as widely as the modern world does today.

And both clearly highlighted the potential downsides to patent law -- something that folks like Mr. Riley refuse to admit -- assuming that all patents are good, and there is no downside to a patent. Most people (unlike Riley) will admit that patents have both benefits and downsides. I certainly admit that. I just find that the evidence shows the downsides almost always outweigh the benefits. I believe, though it is certainly conjecture, that had Jefferson access to the same research, he would have felt the same. His reluctant support of the patent system was without the ability to have seen such research, and thus I could see how he would conclude that perhaps in some cases, patents were okay.

In this age, with the amount of evidence that has now been collected, it is much harder to support that assertion.

Hey, techdirt lemmings

We might not have any middle class left in USA in just a few years if things go according to the plans of Mike's corporate masters, but beer will remain cheap..

Follow your corporate masters and their whores in US Congress: you will have no tech job, no house, no family to raise, of course, but you will always be able to buy some cheap beer on your monthly allowance and log on to some public internet terminal to read another nonsensical shit that Mike posts here on techdirt

Latest News!

According to sources, RJR and angry dude (the one looking for anal action) have fallen in love and are now dating! No word yet on whether AD's anal desires have been met.
Check back later for more on this developing story!

That's because...

Rambling on Thomas Jefferson

Somewhat unrelated, but consider that Thomas worked on several large picture ideas in the country's infancy. Thomas also had this to say about banking:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802) 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Things get complicated when the dollar is essentialy backed by a business process of subprime mortgage derivatives, and people's primary life-long primary investments loose substantial value overnight.

So someone mentioned above, that IP is considered the backbone of the economy, and the dollar's value is based on the faith of the US government, and not tied to a valuation with a tangible (ie Gold), then by transitive property, the economy has an intrinsic value. But how do you valuate it such that it directly correlates to a specific amount of purchasing power?

Coming back to Thomas Jefferson, And I realize this theroy may be a little off the reservation, but may be worth looking at and I would be interested if someone can either confirm or deny it- industries who are based in the brokering of intellectual property, (an intangible) look for ways to increase the asset's tangible value, which leads to legistlation.

Costs involved in, say movie production go up, but the customers demand lower prices because of lack of money flowing in, or within of the general economy. Therefore transaction quantities decrease, causing the valuation of the distribution channel decrease, which also decreases the intrinsic value of the IP, and the system around it.

This eventually leads to legislation of an industry that could have succeeded, if it look at ways to increase customer conversion rates (discounting the value of IP or licensing it) instead of devaluating the asset's value.

distinctions

MLS wrote "Whether people agree or disagree that intangible property (aka...choses in action) should be accorded the attributes of "property" as is associated with tangible property is largely beside the point. Under current jurisprudence patents and copyrights are treated as property under both state and federal law."
Maybe, but NOT the type of property you can "steal" in any legal sense

losers like this should be subject to a search of their homes, offices, cars and all devices that belong to their family, that includes photocopies and once copyrighted material is found they should be taken to the local jail and told to grab their ankles to get punishment, sounds fair for being a hypocrite or maybe the dumb ass should stop taking kickbacks and pass a reasonable law.

Spokesperson for Dead Men

Mike quote:
"I certainly admit that. I just find that the evidence shows the downsides almost always outweigh the benefits. I believe, though it is certainly conjecture, that had Jefferson access to the same research, he would have felt the same."

Great, we have a self appointed spokesperson for a dead person about what they would have said after they were dead.

Mike, this is a particularly weak argument device- to project from the future into the past and then claim an apparent endorsement to your theory from a famous dead man.

Re: Spokesperson for Dead Men

Mike, this is a particularly weak argument device- to project from the future into the past and then claim an apparent endorsement to your theory from a famous dead man.

I haven't claimed an endorsement. I have merely pointed to what he said, and noted that it appears he would have supported this position, given his quotes. I never claimed that he absolutely would have. And I never hid his comments. You are free to judge for yourself what you think he would believe, but his comments on the subject certainly do tend to lean towards what we discuss here.

ME LOVE PORN

If you don't like this bill, then you must be...

Not to take attention away from the debate, but if Senator Howard Berman (and those like him) really want to get an emotional reaction from people, they need to stop with the namby-pamby "you must be against IP protection" and go straight for the kill:

If you're against this bill, then you're a terrorist!
(or)
If you're against this bill, then you don't want to protect the children.
(or, better yet)
If you're against this bill, they you must be a terrorist out to hurt the children of the good ole U.S. of A.!
(For more impact, insert a video clip of the flag waving or a cute kid eating apple pie, preferably while watching a baseball game.)

And there you go: no supporting evidence is needed. Just keep repeating that phrase (with the video) to the media and you've won your case.

RJR is definitely making himself "transparent."

I particularly loved his broad generalization that readers of Techdirt (and anyone else who isn't RJR?) are "the unwashed and ignorant masses." Apparently we are so dim that we are easily inflamed when reading simple opinions in a blog. I suppose we should just toss our degrees and dozens of years of experience in the trash because he is obviously far above us all. I do agree that he has certainly made himself "transparent" to me in his posts today.

I am now of the opinion that RJR is a self-serving, self-important, intelligence-impaired, dirt-bag lobbyist with his life fully centered around a personal agenda at the expense of all logic or reason. I further suspect the patents he purportedly holds are very likely of questionable value, which would explain why he is so adamantly, irrationally, and unsuccessfully defending his narrow-minded viewpoint. After watching him expose his ignorance and lack of proof, I am now convinced of the justification for tightening patent restrictions.

If I wasn't so "unwashed and ignorant" I might be able to think of an appropriate way to thank him for helping me clarify my own opinions on the subject. I suppose I'll just sit here and drool on myself instead.

Re: RJR is definitely making himself "transparent

dumb and dirty

I prefer to think of myself as dumb and dirty. I hate being called ignorant in an incomplete or run-on sentence.
I believe if you want the world to think you and your associates are brilliant then you need to at least learn the basics of the language you use. Logically speaking stealing one's intellect would require removal of one's brain thereby making it impossible for them to actually know it's been stolen. That of course is a technical formality. I compliment you Mike on your manners in handling such "brilliant and transparent" individuals.
I knew the EFF was up to something, IP thieves. Lol.
Hi Bill I'm Rebecca mind if I sit in the corner and drool with you. We can wait for Mike's next public advocacy outcry.

Me: Those politicians who act like whore should sh

Damn, and just when it seemed like he was starting to hint at being reasonable on this stuff with his last speech. This isn't about people stealing stuff, this is about a dying industry unreasonably expecting that government will evolve a new welfare teat for it to suckle on.

Re:

Funny, but the US Patent Office says you can steal intellectual property.

Yeah, that's kind of what patents are for. One person gets a patent on an idea and then is entitled to keep others who independently come up with similar ideas from using their own ideas. Patents suck.